the obligation to reproduce?

[cellio]

During Torah study we've been discussing the part of Leviticus that covers permitted and forbidden sexual relationships. Twice in the last three weeks someone has asserted that the purpose of sex is procreation. (I disputed it the first time; I didn't do so again this morning.) Then, this afternoon, I read an article in Reform Judaism, from the chairman of the national board, about how our population numbers are dropping and it's because we aren't giving priority to having kids and that's a critical mitzvah because we'll die out otherwise and blah blah blah. (Part of "blah blah blah" was that people are too concerned with their careers and not concerned enough with marrying early and reproducing.)

Nonsense, I say.

First off, there is at least one other halachic reason for sexual intercourse: pleasure. Men are specifically obligated to provide this pleasure for their wives, in fact. The talmud even specifies frequency requirements! The idea that sex is only for procreation is not a traditional Jewish notion.

If procreation were the only motivating factor, then alongside the familial restrictions (don't lie with your inlaws) and the ever-challenging Lev 18:22, we would see something about not lying with people who are infertile. But we don't, because that is not forbidden. (For that matter, the Torah itself doesn't say anything against masturbation, though I don't know about later sources.)

Some people can't have kids, and for some people it would be a really bad idea to have kids, but we don't chase those people off. [1] We do, however, alienate them every time we say things like "sex is for procreation, and why aren't you doing your part to replenish the Jewish people?". I am especially offended to hear that argument from leaders in the Reform movement -- leaders who are not simultaneously saying things like "Shabbat is central to Judaism and why aren't you observing it?". The sages aren't even in complete agreement on whether "p'ru ur'vu" (be fruitful and multiply) is a commandment; some say it's a blessing instead.

Further, appeals based on achieving replacement levels for population (the number that gets kicked around is 2.1 kids per couple) are misguided on their own. What good does it do to produce more kids, if we aren't also doing something to keep them Jewish? More than half the US marriages involving Jews are intermarriages; those Jews are very unlikely to have Jewish grandkids. And even within Jewish marriages, how many kids continue their education past bar/bat mitzvah? How many kids end up as committed Jewish adults? The problem here isn't production; it's retention. And if we can't solve the retention problem first, then increasing production won't solve a thing. In fact, it'll make things worse, by providing more non-religious nominally-Jewish models for kids who might be waffling on whether to stick with it.

Yes, paying attention to demographic studies is important -- but it is also important not to attribute the wrong reasons to the results. I would much rather have a smaller number of more committed members of the community; nominal body count really doesn't matter much if they're Jews only in DNA.

Growth will come from increasing education and commitment, and from converts. We need not, and should not, pressure people into having more children than they otherwise would have. That is a loss, not a gain, for the community.

I'll probably try to distill this down into a letter to the editor of Reform Judaism, so comments would be very welcome.

[1] Yes, I am aware that the talmud teaches (somewhere; don't have the cite) that a man may divorce his wife if they fail to produce a child after ten years of trying.

Comments

[figmo.livejournal.com]

As the product of a marriage in which the woman converted to Judiasm to please her husband, you can convert someone on paper, but if they don't feel like going along inside, they won't. My mother still believes in HailMarys and Novenas (did I spell those correctly?) more than she does anything in a synagogue.

As for the Reform movement's patrilineal descent ruling, in practice most folks don't buy it. My brother married a Catholic gal, and their intent was to raise their daughter Jewish. My sister-in-law didn't convert because she felt she'd be living a lie. In practice, my brother found no synagogue in the area would take my niece in because "she's not really Jewish."

One of my (female) first cousins had married a non-Jew. Her teenage son is active in their synagogue.

I've been involved with a Catholic guy for many years. If I marry him, I intend to raise my children Jewish. It'd be nice if I could find a rabbi willing to participate in our wedding. Catholic priests have no compunctions about marrying Catholics to Jews; I know because I was maid of honor at such a wedding over 20 years ago. I don't understand why the reverse holds true on our end.

[cellio]

you can convert someone on paper, but if they don't feel like going along inside, they won't.

Right. Insincere or indifferent conversions are bad. Also probably halachically invalid, so a pro-forma conversion just for the sake of a marriage really doesn't solve anything.

On patrilineal descent, I obviously only have a limited sample here, but what I'm seeing locally is different from what you've seen. Maybe my congregation is special and I just don't know it. (Well, it is special, but for other reasons. :-) ) We have about 50 b'nei mitzvah a year, and in all cases, including the intermarriages, the parents participate in the service. We do have a rule that non-Jews don't say certain bleesings (including aliyot), but in those cases we either give those people other roles or have the couple do the aliya (so a Jew is saying it). I don't go to the morning b'nei mitzvah services often (I attend a different morning minyan), but from what I've heard it seems to work out. On Friday nights the parents light the candles and the child makes kiddush, and that doesn't seem to vary. (I'm there almost every Friday.) I know we have people who are relying on patrilineal descent for status rulings.

Now that's the official side. Out in the congregation, I don't know if people accept children of Jewish mothers more than they do children of Jewish fathers. I haven't discussed it with people. I haven't seen obvious signs of bias, but I haven't looked for the subtle ones. But near as I can tell, those kids are welcome to fully participate in the congregation, and many of them do.

[figmo.livejournal.com]

Whether someone who converts on paper but not inside is really Jewish is a topic that can be debated and probably is.

The acceptance of patrilineal descent is also highly variable, depending upon where you are. My brother claimed to have had problems with the reform synagogues in his area accepting patrilineal descent. I haven't spoken to him about it in years (heck, I haven't spoken to him in years, and for good reason, but that's another story), and I haven't seen how much of a search he's made. I just know what he has told me.

I also have a friend out here who is Jewish by patrilineal descent, and he has found similar problems of being accepted as a Jew even though he identifies himself as being Jewish.

[cellio]

The acceptance of patrilineal descent is also highly variable, depending upon where you are.

Sounds like, yes. I hadn't realized. I thought this was one of the things congregations/rabbis were required to abide by in order to belong to the movement.

I also have a friend out here who is Jewish by patrilineal descent, and he has found similar problems of being accepted as a Jew even though he identifies himself as being Jewish.

How often do the specifics come up? In my congregation, most people wouldn't even ask: if you show up and say you're Jewish, you're believed. I would not be able to tell you which people in my congregation are Jews by which methods (matrilineal, patrilineal, conversion...), unless they told me or I saw something that made it obvious (like a conversion ceremony). I hadn't previously realized how unusual this might be.

[goljerp]

you can convert someone on paper, but if they don't feel like going along inside, they won't. My mother still believes in HailMarys and Novenas (did I spell those correctly?) more than she does anything in a synagogue.

This is probably why there are more instances of intermarriage now than in the past; in the past people would 'convert' for a wedding and not really get into it, while now they don't. However, as you noted, there are implications for the children in these cases. Also, I should point out that Judiasm (despite Maimonides' best efforts) is (in general) more concerned about one's actions than beliefs.

In practice, my brother found no synagogue in the area would take my niece in because "she's not really Jewish."

Even Reform? (Or perhaps there were no Reform synagogues in the area?)

Catholic priests have no compunctions about marrying Catholics to Jews; I know because I was maid of honor at such a wedding over 20 years ago.

It was my understanding that Catholic priests would perform intermarriages of any kind (including to protestants, etc.) only if the couple promised to raise the children catholic. Am I mistaken?

[figmo.livejournal.com]

[me]In practice, my brother found no synagogue in the area would take my niece in because "she's not really Jewish."

[goljerpEven Reform? (Or perhaps there were no Reform synagogues in the area?)

Where he lives (the boondocks of south Jersey), most of the synagogues are reform, with a few conservative ones scattered here and there. The rabbi at the reform synagogue we went to as children had contempt for us because our mother wasn't born a Jew.

It was my understanding that Catholic priests would perform intermarriages of any kind (including to protestants, etc.) only if the couple promised to raise the children catholic. Am I mistaken?

They sign something to the effect that they will "try" to do so, but AFAIK they're not bound to it.

[goljerp]

The rabbi at the reform synagogue we went to as children had contempt for us because our mother wasn't born a Jew.

This makes me very upset. That Rabbi was totally wrong.

[cellio]

I agree.

[figmo.livejournal.com]

[me]The rabbi at the reform synagogue we went to as children had contempt for us because our mother wasn't born a Jew.

[goljerp]This makes me very upset. That Rabbi was totally wrong.

The rabbi from that synagogue is the reason I have problems, to this day, with joining a synagogue. He did lots of other things in Hebrew School that make this pale in comparison. Suffice it to say when my parents pulled me out of Hebrew School when they found out he was teaching the advanced Hebrew classes, it was for good reasons.

[goljerp]

The rabbi from that synagogue is the reason I have problems, to this day, with joining a synagogue.

Unfortunately, a Rabbi can be a worthless scumbags just like any other person. However, in my personal experience, the worthless Rabbinical scumbags are few and far between. Try not to let one scumbag totally ruin Judiasm for you. (Because, in my opinion, Judiasm is best experienced as part of a community. Sure, it's possible to be a Jew on one's own, but it's better with a community.)

Actually, looking at this, maybe the Havurah movement would be more your speed... lay led services might do the trick! :-)

[figmo.livejournal.com]

In more recent days I've been considering joining a congregation. The lack of desire to get massively involved (I feel like I've got too many "irons in the fire" already) and a lack of funds for membership fees have me putting that on hold.

There are a couple of congregations out here that I would seriously consider joining. One has a rabbi with whom I've swapped a few e-mails (he's pretty cool); the other doesn't have a rabbi, but offers free high holy day services (for that alone I'd support them) and at one point had the coolest congregation President I've ever come across (his speech for money at the Yom Kippur service: "You know who we are. You know what we do. You know the rest. Thank you.").

[goljerp]

a lack of funds for membership fees have me putting that on hold.

If you get to a point where this is the only thing holding you back, I'd suggest asking someone at the shul if they have reduced fees for people in difficult financial situations. Many (most?) shuls do.

Catholic Priests

[dagonell.livejournal.com]

It varies. My parents are extremely close friends with a Roman Catholic monseignor who has performed a number of marriages within the extended family. It was sort of assumed by everybody that he would be presiding over mine as well. And then I met my future wife, we 'went steady' for a long time and then announced that we were getting married. We spoke to him about his performing the ceremony, we had no reason to break from family tradition. He gave us one... in spades! He said he would schedule Catholic education classes so my wife could convert, our intended date of a little less than a year away was, of course, to be dis-regarded. He intended to interview us separately and together and then depending on how well Karen did in her conversion, *he* would decide when we were ready to be married. He wasn't sure we were ready for the responsibility of having children. When I told him we didn't want kids, he said I was wrong! As "practicing Catholics" we had an obligation to have children and raise them in the Catholic faith! I couldn't believe his gall! He KNEW that I hadn't stepped foot in a church since I moved out of my parents house, he KNEW I didn't believe in about 99% of the dogma the Roman Catholics preach and he had the arrogance to tell me HE was going decide whether or not I had kids??? We never went to the second scheduled interview. We talked to some close friends and ended up using the Methodist minister they used. This pretty much caused WW III in my family. I simply stated the invitations were sent out, come or not as you see fit, it's our wedding, not yours! Things were 'interesting' at family gatherings for about half a year until people simply got used to the idea. Monica, my apologies for airing a pet peeve in your journal instead of mine. I simply started typing and it all came out.

Re: Catholic Priests

[cellio]

Bah. How unreasonable!

I would have thought the correct thing to do -- for any clergy person, not just him -- would be to say something like "I have certain requirements of the couple before I'll do a wedding. They are X, Y, and Z. Are you willing to meet those requirements?"

He's within his right to not perform the wedding if the couple won't do what he requires, but he's way out of bounds in presuming that he can order people around like that. All he can do (and all he should do) is withdraw.

Re: Catholic Priests

[dagonell.livejournal.com]

Part of the problem was that he himself was throughly brainwashed by his religion. He couldn't conceive the idea of NOT wanting to be married in the Catholic Church. It never occurred to him that we wouldn't want to jump through all the hoops for a Roman Catholic wedding.

Re: Catholic Priests

[goljerp]

Monica, my apologies for airing a pet peeve in your journal instead of mine.

<aol>me too</aol>

I have been rather verbose in your journal the past few days...

Re: Catholic Priests

[cellio]

Verbosity is a sin? I don't see it on the list. :-)

Seriously, verbosity is a sometimes-necessary effect of discussion, and I enjoy discussions. Don't sweat it.